Pebble wrote:Not for nothing, but the reval has been discussed over the course of *years* not days. The reval began in Fulop's inaugural year (2013). That means people have had 4 years to prepare and "phase in" the potential cost of their tax bill. They have been able to determine whether they can afford or not the increased cost.

Indeed not for nothing. Fulop stopped the reval, and if the City has made any announcements indicating the potential tax rate post-reval, they've been well hidden from me. Perhaps had they gone on the public record indicating the anticipated range of the expected rate, people might have had a better opportunity to prepare. But that didn't happen. And the City didn't conduct revals for over 25 years either.

The City bears a large measure of culpability for this mess, and should undertake reasonable steps to mitigate the inevitable negative impact as the tax changes are implemented.

As I think I've said here before – I'm not paying any more tax than I already do to the City and State. I've taken several steps to insulate myself from any future increases. Unless the City and State start showing some degree of responsibility and reasonableness, well they'll just have to do without my contributions altogether.

Fulop tried to stop it, but it landed in court. Everyone also knew that the last reval was so far in the past that it absolutely had to occur at some point in the near future. Delaying it any further continues to result in many people overpaying on their property.

The City certainly holds blame for this. After all, they didn't perform a reval for decades. You state this yourself. How can you claim to honestly be surprised by your taxes going up? The property values certainly went up. Were you supposed to benefit from equity and not up your tax rate?

Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:While I can certainly understand (and, perhaps even sympathize) with the concept that the tax increase will be hard (even impossible) for some to absorb, it should also be pointed out that people have had time to plan accordingly (as Pebble points out) and those same people that will get a huge tax increase have been getting a free ride for a long time, some even 10+ years. It is hard to feel bad for someone who has been saving 10-15 K per year by being under assessed and did nothing to prepare for what should have been an obvious future increase in tax levy.

I have heard people gloating about their insanely low tax bills in DTJC, so yeah... this increase will hit them hard, but they are now conveniently forgetting about the many years of riding the gravy train.

EXACTLY!

You have a huge section of the city that has been overpaying. Where is the sympathy for them?

I can certainly understand those that get hit hard. It's unfortunate and it will certainly create issues for some. But those same people benefited from paying so little.

[quote]135jc wrote:No one should have to pay close to 2% of this market value for a condo or a 25x100 lot. /quote]

No, those are normal rates for anywhere but NYC, which subsidizes it's small residential properties tremendously. But according to the news DeBlasio is now pandering to people who whine about their tremendously low taxes. So there's no pleasing some people.

BTW, if 2% is outrageous what do you say to the people who have been paying three and four percent to subsidize the downtowners?

Other towns have deal with borrowing for terminal leave. They have put a cap for what retirees can take with them. JC has done neither. Over the years, JC has bonded hundreds of millions for employees who basically live outside of JC. There are bonds from McCann Administration to this administration that are doing the same thing- asking taxpayers to go into debt so employees can have a pay day.

bodhipooh wrote:While I can certainly understand (and, perhaps even sympathize) with the concept that the tax increase will be hard (even impossible) for some to absorb, it should also be pointed out that people have had time to plan accordingly (as Pebble points out) and those same people that will get a huge tax increase have been getting a free ride for a long time, some even 10+ years. It is hard to feel bad for someone who has been saving 10-15 K per year by being under assessed and did nothing to prepare for what should have been an obvious future increase in tax levy.

I have heard people gloating about their insanely low tax bills in DTJC, so yeah... this increase will hit them hard, but they are now conveniently forgetting about the many years of riding the gravy train.

No one should have to pay close to 2% of this market value for a condo or a 25x100 lot. It's absurd with all the business here and such a large tax base. Those are suburban rates. Hopefully the reval will put some pressure on the Administration to cut waste out of the budget.

I believe it's illegal for the city to borrow for operating expenses. I've said here before what I think the city should do is set up a bonding system for people who choose to defer paying their taxes that would operate similar to a reverse mortgage. They would bundle the liens for each year into bonds and sell them for operating capital. I have no idea what interest rate would make this worth the effort and feasible for the city.

While I can certainly understand (and, perhaps even sympathize) with the concept that the tax increase will be hard (even impossible) for some to absorb, it should also be pointed out that people have had time to plan accordingly (as Pebble points out) and those same people that will get a huge tax increase have been getting a free ride for a long time, some even 10+ years. It is hard to feel bad for someone who has been saving 10-15 K per year by being under assessed and did nothing to prepare for what should have been an obvious future increase in tax levy.

I have heard people gloating about their insanely low tax bills in DTJC, so yeah... this increase will hit them hard, but they are now conveniently forgetting about the many years of riding the gravy train.

Pebble wrote:Not for nothing, but the reval has been discussed over the course of *years* not days. The reval began in Fulop's inaugural year (2013). That means people have had 4 years to prepare and "phase in" the potential cost of their tax bill. They have been able to determine whether they can afford or not the increased cost.

Indeed not for nothing. Fulop stopped the reval, and if the City has made any announcements indicating the potential tax rate post-reval, they've been well hidden from me. Perhaps had they gone on the public record indicating the anticipated range of the expected rate, people might have had a better opportunity to prepare. But that didn't happen. And the City didn't conduct revals for over 25 years either.

The City bears a large measure of culpability for this mess, and should undertake reasonable steps to mitigate the inevitable negative impact as the tax changes are implemented.

As I think I've said here before – I'm not paying any more tax than I already do to the City and State. I've taken several steps to insulate myself from any future increases. Unless the City and State start showing some degree of responsibility and reasonableness, well they'll just have to do without my contributions altogether.

Not for nothing, but the reval has been discussed over the course of *years* not days. The reval began in Fulop's inaugural year (2013). That means people have had 4 years to prepare and "phase in" the potential cost of their tax bill. They have been able to determine whether they can afford or not the increased cost.

Cutting the overpaying but not raising the underpaying would leave a tax deficit, and therefore a budget deficit. That won't fly.

Issue some bonds – the City's credit ratings keep getting upgraded.

The disruptive effects of huge tax increases have to be worse than some medium-term City borrowing. Leaving it to the individual homeowner to borrow is problematic as many won't have the income stream to support the loan, be old enough for a reverse mortgage, or have the necessary documents for the very onerous loan application process....

It can't be impossible for the City to help, they just need to be willing.

Bamb00zle wrote:Brewster, surely it's possible to allow tax reductions immediately – so there's no delay, and no need to explain anything – for those in that category. And, at the same time, for those with large increases, say over $5,000 per year, allow a “phase-in” period of several years, for example, 5 years.

Cutting the overpaying but not raising the underpaying would leave a tax deficit, and therefore a budget deficit. That won't fly.

Brewster, surely it's possible to allow tax reductions immediately – so there's no delay, and no need to explain anything – for those in that category. And, at the same time, for those with large increases, say over $5,000 per year, allow a “phase-in” period of several years, for example, 5 years. One requirement being that over the course of the phase-in period the entire amount of taxes owed would be fully paid. At the end of the “phase-in” the yearly taxes would revert to the “correct” amount. If the property is sold or otherwise transferred in the meantime, the entire balance owed as of the sale/transfer date would become due and payable immediately.

It has taken successive City Administrations 25 years of irresponsibility to arrive at the mess the City is in today regarding this reval. It's not any way reasonable to try to “fix” it all over the course of just 6 months. Yes, for those who are due to receive a tax cut, give it immediately. But the economic harm of a huge tax increase delivered over 6 months will severely and adversely impact many people.

The negligence and intransigence of City Government, resulting in this looming mess, is one of the reasons I sold my property and moved to a rental. When it becomes apparent to people what is going to happen with their taxes I anticipate a distinct cooling in the property market. I might buy back in at that point, although the fiscal mess at the State level is also a major negative for me.

Yes, based on an expected 1.8%, your taxes will be $28,800. Taxes will not be phased in. That amount will be due in 2018, however because City budget tends to not be set until end of 2Q, what is done is that for first half of 2018, you pay 50% of your 2017 taxes (e.g., assume 50% of $12k = $6k). Then in 3Q/4Q the balance is due. Which in your case would be $22,800. Hope that makes sense. I'm in similar situation so I expect a hefty bill 2nd half of 2018.

Quote:

JCBears wrote:I fall into the "I bought downtown with no intentions of leaving" column and I'm hoping someone can help me clarify all the info I've been seeing re: outcome of the reval.

Regardless of how much I paid when I bought, my taxes will now be based on the current market value of my home? So if our neighbors sold for $1.6 million recently am I to expect my tax bill to jump to the $28-$30k range as a result?

Do we expect this to be phased in or done in one swift move? A friend was told this week by the tax office not to expect any changes in tax bills until 3rd quarter 2018 and I find that hard to believe. Thought it would be in place by end of year 2017?

I fall into the "I bought downtown with no intentions of leaving" column and I'm hoping someone can help me clarify all the info I've been seeing re: outcome of the reval.

Regardless of how much I paid when I bought, my taxes will now be based on the current market value of my home? So if our neighbors sold for $1.6 million recently am I to expect my tax bill to jump to the $28-$30k range as a result?

Do we expect this to be phased in or done in one swift move? A friend was told this week by the tax office not to expect any changes in tax bills until 3rd quarter 2018 and I find that hard to believe. Thought it would be in place by end of year 2017?

jc201jc wrote:i have a question about how property taxes are handled now (pre reval). If i buy a condo that had been paying $5k/yr in taxes, will my property tax rate go up based on my purchase price?

Then when the reval is done, could it potentially go up again?

Unless something has changed you will not pay higher taxes then the previous owner. There are some waterfront high-rises however where taxes are reset upon the purchase price. This formula would have saved a lot of heartache for Jersey city but it is not used city wide.

While this is true ordinarily, the question was in context of the reval. If you buy before the reval, the assessment will be reset like all non-abated properties. Simply calculate what % of the sale price is the taxes and if it's less than 1.8% expect them to go up to that.

Much depends on how long ago the condo was built or condoed. A 100 year old building condoed a few years ago will not see taxes rise since the assessments were set at that time and are not wildly innacurate like the older properties DT.

jc201jc wrote:i have a question about how property taxes are handled now (pre reval). If i buy a condo that had been paying $5k/yr in taxes, will my property tax rate go up based on my purchase price?

Then when the reval is done, could it potentially go up again?

Unless something has changed you will not pay higher taxes then the previous owner. There are some waterfront high-rises however where taxes are reset upon the purchase price. This formula would have saved a lot of heartache for Jersey city but it is not used city wide.

While this is true ordinarily, the question was in context of the reval. If you buy before the reval, the assessment will be reset like all non-abated properties. Simply calculate what % of the sale price is the taxes and if it's less than 1.8% expect them to go up to that.

Much depends on how long ago the condo was built or condoed. A 100 year old building condoed a few years ago will not see taxes rise since the assessments were set at that time and are not wildly innacurate like the older properties DT.

jc201jc wrote:^^ ok thanks that helps. I wonder if the reval will serve to stabilize prices in DTJC (or even lower them). Then again, people seem to be getting wrapped up in a real estate bubble again so I wouldn't be surprised if condo prices keep increasing, even if the tax bills will go up by a few thousand $$/yr

Well, You run the risk of the market softening in my opinion due to high revals, but it will probably be short lived. This area rebounded well after the 2007 crash. There are a lot of cash buyers waiting for a small dip.

^^ ok thanks that helps. I wonder if the reval will serve to stabilize prices in DTJC (or even lower them). Then again, people seem to be getting wrapped up in a real estate bubble again so I wouldn't be surprised if condo prices keep increasing, even if the tax bills will go up by a few thousand $$/yr

jc201jc wrote:i have a question about how property taxes are handled now (pre reval). If i buy a condo that had been paying $5k/yr in taxes, will my property tax rate go up based on my purchase price?

Then when the reval is done, could it potentially go up again?

Unless something has changed you will not pay higher taxes then the previous owner. There are some waterfront high-rises however where taxes are reset upon the purchase price. This formula would have saved a lot of heartache for Jersey city but it is not used city wide.

There is nothing in those links which suggests inspectors will "assume that your unit is at the high end of the range of comparables" if they don't gain access. More bullshit disinformation. Why can't people be honest?

"Nothing" except exactly what I said (from the FAQ on ASI's website):

"Can I refuse entry to the field inspector?

Yes, you may refuse entry to your home, but is in your best interest to see that as much information as possible is gathered to help insure an accurate assessment. If an appraiser cannot inspect the inside of a building, it's possible an inaccurate assessment may result. The law provides that a property can be assessed at the highest reasonable value if the field inspector is denied entry.

The revaluation program should not be seen as an adversarial situation. Property owners have a vested interest in the outcome of the project and their cooperation is vital to achieve an equitable revaluation. If one person's property is under-assessed, all the other property owners in the municipality will pay higher taxes to make up for the discrepancy. Conversely, if property owners deny access to the field inspector they could wind up being over-assessed and pay more than their fair share of taxes."

I have no idea why you're so angry about this. It's common sense that if you're trying to get accurate data about every property in the city, and you have some properties about which you still have questions, you need to assume best-case scenario on those properties. In that case, owners who think you got it wrong in their case (they've been over-assessed) will willingly give you that information, improving the quality of your data. If you err on the side of under-assessing, owners who know you made a mistake (they've been under-assessed) will likely not tell you.

Ok, you are right, and I'm sorry about my prior post. There's just so much bad info out there, that it's tough to sort through the bull sometimes, but that's no excuse in this situation.

Erica wrote:I have no idea why you're so angry about this. It's common sense that if you're trying to get accurate data about every property in the city, and you have some properties about which you still have questions, you need to assume best-case scenario on those properties. In that case, owners who think you got it wrong in their case (they've been over-assessed) will willingly give you that information, improving the quality of your data. If you err on the side of under-assessing, owners who know you made a mistake (they've been under-assessed) will likely not tell you.

Not just that, if someone's overassessed enough there's something they can do about it, if they underassess, it stands until the next reval.

Looking again at the 15% issue, I think it effectively does mean 15% of fmv since after a reval the ratio is 100%. So to exceed the ratio by 15% one's assessment must exceed FMV by that amount.

There is nothing in those links which suggests inspectors will "assume that your unit is at the high end of the range of comparables" if they don't gain access. More bullshit disinformation. Why can't people be honest?

"Nothing" except exactly what I said (from the FAQ on ASI's website):

"Can I refuse entry to the field inspector?

Yes, you may refuse entry to your home, but is in your best interest to see that as much information as possible is gathered to help insure an accurate assessment. If an appraiser cannot inspect the inside of a building, it's possible an inaccurate assessment may result. The law provides that a property can be assessed at the highest reasonable value if the field inspector is denied entry.

The revaluation program should not be seen as an adversarial situation. Property owners have a vested interest in the outcome of the project and their cooperation is vital to achieve an equitable revaluation. If one person's property is under-assessed, all the other property owners in the municipality will pay higher taxes to make up for the discrepancy. Conversely, if property owners deny access to the field inspector they could wind up being over-assessed and pay more than their fair share of taxes."

I have no idea why you're so angry about this. It's common sense that if you're trying to get accurate data about every property in the city, and you have some properties about which you still have questions, you need to assume best-case scenario on those properties. In that case, owners who think you got it wrong in their case (they've been over-assessed) will willingly give you that information, improving the quality of your data. If you err on the side of under-assessing, owners who know you made a mistake (they've been under-assessed) will likely not tell you.

yorkster wrote:So if your assessment comes in at $1M but the FMV should be at $850K, a person does not have the right to appeal because it's not greater than >15%? If so, that homeowner would be overpaying their taxes by $2700 (assuming 1.8%). How is that fair?

I think the idea is not to clutter tax court with people attempting to lower their taxes minute amounts every year. But the actual math seems not be 15% of value, but 15% of the difference between the official ratio and your ratio.

Can anyone decipher this from a NJ document? Maybe I'm just tired but I can't.

JCGuys wrote:There is nothing in those links which suggests inspectors will "assume that your unit is at the high end of the range of comparables" if they don't gain access. More bullshit disinformation. Why can't people be honest?

My understanding from the various Q&As I've seen is that if they're unable to access your unit, they will assume that your unit is at the high end of the range of comparables. So if some units in your building have been renovated with upgraded appliances and some have not, they will assume yours is one of the renovated ones unless they can get in to see otherwise.

Can you post a link to this Q&A? There's so much misinformation and disinformation out there, so I want to read that for myself on a reputable site.

ETA: ASI's site lists one more upcoming presentation at Lincoln High on 6/29 from 7:30PM - 8:30PM.

There is nothing in those links which suggests inspectors will "assume that your unit is at the high end of the range of comparables" if they don't gain access. More bullshit disinformation. Why can't people be honest?

yorkster wrote:So if your assessment comes in at $1M but the FMV should be at $850K, a person does not have the right to appeal because it's not greater than >15%? If so, that homeowner would be overpaying their taxes by $2700 (assuming 1.8%). How is that fair?

The info from ASI states that you can schedule a one-on-one meeting with them to discuss your valuation (after it's released, obviously). This is an informal avenue for adjustment.

They also say that if you still aren't satisfied, you can appeal to the County Board of Taxation (also an informal process), and then to the NJ State Tax Court (formal). They don't mention any threshold for appeal. (Which doesn't mean there isn't one, particularly for Tax Court.)